Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.
Article Source: moonbatterySomeone read through the California Penal Code and found language virtually identical to the requirements of Arizona's SB1070 Law.
...The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status."
I suppose it is safe to assume that no one in California enforces this particular law.
I would think this would be grounds for the local citizens to demand resignations.
We can't in L.A. because of Darryl Gates. He implemented the order prohibiting law enforcement verifying citizenship if in the commission of a crime or stopped for a traffic violation.
I'm confused????? How does the California Penal Law mirror the original Arizona law since it clearly pertains to arrested people not lawful people walking down a street and being detained solely because they are legally not carrying an ID?????
Apples and oranges. Is the writer missing the opposite concepts...much.
http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/PENALCODE/CPC113-114-115-834b.html
I would think this would be grounds for the local citizens to demand resignations
Have you ever heard the old saying about wishing in one hand and ........ in the other and see which one fills up first.
-Norcal2-
I've read the new AZ law (have you?) & didn't see anything in it that said that law enforcement could just randomly stop someone that didn't break the law. If fact it talks about punishing those found to be guilty of that kind of profiling. I would have to say it's apples and apples. The only difference is the apples in CA seem to be rotten. I'm not surprised you're confused though considering your screen name. Most in Norcal seem to get confused easily considering they continue to keep Pelosi in office. Enjoy the collapse of your state due to it's incompetent government voted in by people like you.
Mcal70 I read BOTH of Arizona's laws, the original that did as I said in my post and the edited version after the flawed language was corrected. Which version are you talking about?
Assuming that you mean the latest version, the language is much better but still a question that courts will answer. As you have seen if you read it the Arizona law has expanded the "probable cause" aspect to include municipal calls for anything like being called to an address because someone is running their sprinklers too long (my example.) The flaw may still exist in Arizona law because sprinklers are not a detainable/arrest investigation. The courts will have to rule on whether that expansion of a municipal ticket as probable cause for arrest is viable or legal. If it proves to be an expansion of the legal rights you have it will be overturned. Be patient and wait for the courts to iron it out as it provides less egg on the face. Obviously if it is a legal law then it can be supported without selling the Constitutional rights we all share.
The California code clearly applies to people actually arrested. Big difference.
The similarity is that both laws purport to deal with ILLEGAL immigrants. It is the illegality of the residency in the US that defines the similarity. What difference does it make if someone was arrested or not? Are all arrested people guilty?
Deporting convicted felons would be one thing, the Calif law is closer to Ariz's than it is to THAT.
John..Too bad the Arizona law will NOT lead to more deportation and instead will lead to MORE illegals in the state. And as other viners have stated it is an Apples and Oranges comparison.
Does Calif enforce it's law? There are probably at least a million illegal immigrants in California, I would assume a lot of them, as a raw number, not a percentage, have been arrested. Were they sent home? I doubt it.
Gotta love it, they want to boycott AZ and they have the same law they just don't enforce? Government sucks! I just heard this am they will have to give up 25% of there electricity AZ supplies to CA. If they boycott AZ then give everything up, don't pick and choose. AZ will be cutting electricity off to them if they boycott, gotta love those balls, finally. What world does man make for its self? Never stops to amaze me.
Mcal70:
The new AZ law talks about checking immigration status for all forms of "lawful contact", not just suspicion of a crime. That includes contact with people who are reporting crimes. It includes any witnesses they interview. It includes contact with people who are asking them directions. It includes anyone they come in contact with in the course of their job who they may suspect is here illegally.
You really don't see any difference between this and the CA bill which targets people who have actually been arrested?
As for talking about punishing people guilty of profiling? Sure, pressure forced them to include that language, but tell me something: how do you enforce this bill without profiling? What would give a police officer reasonable suspicion that someone is not in the country legally? Do you suppose poor immigrants here legally dress or act differently than those here illegally? Do you suppose there are any outwardly visible cues other than their race that would make a police officer suspicious?
I'm confused????? How does the California Penal Law mirror the original Arizona law since it clearly pertains to arrested people not lawful people walking down a street and being detained solely because they are legally not carrying an ID?????
Boy this says it all. Just like Odumbo, Eric Holder, and now Janet Napolitano, we still have Liberals out commenting on a Law they have never read. Just like Oboozo giving a speech in front of another planted veted crowd of worshipers telling them how you can be stopped, questioned, and arrested while going with your child to get ice cream. Complete BS to the highest degree and this is coming from the President of the United States.
What Odumb-dumb knowingly forgot to tell the audience is the parent taking his kid to get ice cream would have to first stop and rob a bank before the police could stop him for questioning. Leave it to the Lair-n-Chief to misrepresent on purpose yet again.....
What Odumb-dumb knowingly forgot to tell the audience is the parent taking his kid to get ice cream would have to first stop and rob a bank before the police could stop him for questioning
Or, you know, stop and ask the cop for directions to the ice cream store. The law says it itself: "FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL..." (Sorry for the caps, that's how Arizona writes these statutes). Lawful contact doesn't just mean arrests. It means anyone the cop legally has contact with as part of their job. Whether they are reporting a crime, witnesses to a crime, or even just stopping to ask directions.
"Lawful Contact" is not what the amended Arizona law says.
HB2162 says
For any lawful STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency
and
Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released.
THE RIGHT DEPENDS ON YOUR IGNORANCE TO SPREAD THEIR DECEIT.
The california law, required the indivual to have been arrested for another crime before you demand papers. See they had probable cause that a real crime was commited before demanding papers.
in arizona all it required is "legal contact" which the lying right wingers just added due to the boycotts.
legal contact means the cops can demand the papers of anyone they talk to.
if a child asks a cop for directions, the cop can demand papers.
no crime must be commited before your rights are violated.
this is totally different from the california law.. but the lying GOP who know this, expect you will not.
TEH GOP DEPEND ON YOUR IGNORANCE TO SPREAD THEIR DECEIT.
Go USA, GREAT response, get them with the ACTUAL facts. I would give you a million votes if I could!!!!
To the poster named Really:
Groan. Please read the laws and try to keep up on what the issues actually are - and the differences. I don't mean to sound rude but you sound like you just don't get it yet or can't see the huge differences in both laws.
USA 1-1003451:
I see. It looks like the original bill was amended a week after it passed due to the concerns raised by the ACLU and others over the original wording. Good, now it's closer to being in line with California, though it still contains provisions for checking the citizenship status of anyone who is merely stopped or detained which does open the door for profiling. As I asked before: how does someone enforce this bill without profiling? What would give a police officer reasonable suspicion that someone is not in the country legally? Do you suppose poor immigrants here legally dress or act differently than those here illegally? Do you suppose there are any outwardly visible cues other than their race that would make a police officer suspicious?
I would imagine if you have 80% of the illegals being a specific ethnicity "SOME" people would call that profiling - and, you're right - they are profiling folks who are illegally in the U. S. Good profile, eh?
fstwarrior:
Even if 100% of the illegals in the US were Hispanic, illegals still wouldn't be a significant percentage of the Hispanics in US. To target all Hispanics in a hunt for illegals makes about as much sense as targeting all Muslims in order to try to catch terrorists or targeting all white males in order to catch serial killers.
They are not targeting Hispanics - they are targeting illegals - white, brown, black, yellow, and red.
No, they are targeting hispanics in an attempt to catch illegals. That's the nature of racial profiling, and you just defended the hispanic profile a moment ago as a "good profile".
You want facts? It also says they can ask for id during:
IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER LAW OR ORDINANCE OF A COUNTY, CITY OR TOWN OR THIS STATE
So while enforcing any ordinance they can ask for id. A neighbor calls in complaining of a loud dog and the police have the duty to ask all members involved for proof of citizenship.
The amendments are getting better, but I think it will still have problems in the courts.
And some of you may want to drop the name calling. It is pretty childish.
"Groan. Please read the laws and try to keep up on what the issues actually are - and the differences. I don't mean to sound rude but you sound like you just don't get it yet or can't see the huge differences in both laws."
To the poster named norcal:
Keep up on the issues? LoL... You mean blinding follow along as the Progressive Liberals lie about whats in the law. Stand by and watch the Progressive Liberals prophesize as if its law. Stick my head in the sand while the Progressive Liberals conjecture as if its the law. I think not - this Independent has a voice and I will not sit down and shut up while the Progressives play their little game of hide the intent.
Here is a small recap of what you originally typed for your short memory.
"...lawful people walking down a street and being detained solely because they are legally not carrying an ID"
and again you are wrong - this statement is ignorant and is no where in the law. Just like the President you are either purposely misrepresenting the law or you have yet to read it yourself. I stand by my first post in reply to your first comment. Have a good day.
Californians don't have a problem with their law because it is not like the AZ law, especially as originally written. The "lawful contact" that got everyone pissed off has been removed, but it still allows for them to check when called to your house for a barking dog, un-mowed lawn, noise complaint, etc. This still makes it different from the California law and is the part that is still in question.
This article is trying to draw a direct line where there isn't one. To me, California's law seems completely reasonable, Arizona's original law was not, and the new version is probably OK but is still in the grey area.
Does Calif enforce it's law? There are probably at least a million illegal immigrants in California, I would assume a lot of them, as a raw number, not a percentage, have been arrested. Were they sent home? I doubt it.
I think your number is pretty low for California in 2006 the estimate was 2.6 million.
I live in California and honestly believe the number is closer to 6 million illegals. There are entire cities where the demographics are 70% illegal.
Paula,
Out of curiosity, what's your opinion on those six million illegals?
I guess the mistake Arizona made is that they said they were going to ENFORCE their law.
#2 - Wed May 19, 2010 8:00 AM EDTI know it is complex for right wingers to understand. The mistake is the arizona law is unconstitutional, while the california law that required the indivual to actually be under arrest for some other crime before demanding papers.. you know like what happens to each and every once of us when we get stopped by the police.
But i suspect you knew all this.. your a bright fellow.. so why mislead the folks?
Joules - you keep saying it's unconstitutional - show me where - anywhere.
fstwarrior, here is a snippet i found online. It is still vague, but the courts have struck down similar laws. Basically, the police can ask for id only if someone is reasonably suspected of breaking a law. The AZ law has been refined to try to keep it constitutional, but the courts will have the final say.
The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable search and seizures and the fifth from self incrimination. The Supreme Court limited these rights in Hiibel v Sixth Judicial Court of Nevada by saying that state governments can arrest a person suspected of criminal activity for refusing to identify themselves, but did not say that the government could require identification. These are known as stop and identify laws and can only be used if there is reasonable suspicion that the person has been involved in a criminal activity as upheld in Brown v Texas. The court also struck down a similar California law which would have required proper identification due to vagueness and the fact that it it could end up "...resulting in virtually unrestrained power to arrest and charge persons with a violation."
Look, most of us want to prevent illegal immigration. But not at the cost of our freedoms.
The mistake is the arizona law is unconstitutional, while the california law that required the indivual to actually be under arrest for some other crime before demanding papers..
LoL.....now we have Progressive splitting hairs in defence. So Joules, its unconstitutional to ask for my drivers license when stopped for having a tail light out? Its unconstitutional to ask me for proof of insurance when stopped for having a headlight out? Its unconstitutional to ask me for ID when purchasing Alcohol or Cigarettes? Its unconstitutional for the Federal Government to require all non US Citizens to carry papers on them at all times?
Puuleeeze!
The argument over the police being able to just stop someone solely on the color of their skin was debunked weeks ago, but we still have Progressives on the Vine chanting the old talking point.....
When ever a crime occurs in this Country whether is be speeding, running a stop sign, robbing a bank, etc..., etc.... that requires Police to get involved, its already Constitutional for them to get the identification of the individual to find out who they are dealing with. To now say this is Unconstitutional just because the Police Officer may go further into finding out if you are here Illegally takes the cake. LoL.....
The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable search and seizures and the fifth from self incrimination. The Supreme Court limited these rights in Hiibel v Sixth Judicial Court of Nevada by saying that state governments can arrest a person suspected of criminal activity for refusing to identify themselves, but did not say that the government could require identification. These are known as stop and identify laws and can only be used if there is reasonable suspicion that the person has been involved in a criminal activity as upheld in Brown v Texas. The court also struck down a similar California law which would have required proper identification due to vagueness and the fact that it it could end up "...resulting in virtually unrestrained power to arrest and charge persons with a violation."
I got to laugh. Citing law that has that vague word "reasonable" in it that so many are crying about being in the bill.
So now we are splitting hairs over whether you should be arrested then look at legal status or inquire about legal status while on a stop - "legal stop, detainment, or arrest" (it is in the AZ bill).
CA doesn't enforce their immigration laws as, referencing post 1.2 -
We can't in L.A. because of Darryl Gates. He implemented the order prohibiting law enforcement verifying citizenship if in the commission of a crime or stopped for a traffic violation.
Mr. Gates should be fired for failure to uphold state law.
I am not talking about whether or not CA enforces the law. Personally I think we should.
But it is not accurate to say the laws are the same. CA law says you have to be arrested first. AZ says you don't. It is that simple. So we will have to wait and see if the courts find it constitutional.
AZ law is stricter on the cops than the Federal laws check out Muehler v Mena
Indeed, the Court made clear that no predicate "independent reasonable cause' need exist to inquire into immigration status.
If America enforced it's own laws, most of Congress would be in Federal prison.
Judges would be sent to the gallows.
#3 - Wed May 19, 2010 8:18 AM EDTjudges to the gallows? for what ? let me guess saying that a law banning gay marriage in massecutes in unconstitutional according to the mass consitution and yall are upset yall dont have enough social conservatives in the mass legislator to make a new amendment, so instead yall attack the judges as "activist"
right?
No Joules, for throwing people in the cell unconstitutionally with "contempt of court", a power that the judges were never supposed to have.
well I know one judge who should be sent to the gallows: that judge who forced ethan stacy's dad to send him to his mother for the summer. (slightly off topic, but we were on the subject of sending judges to the gallows)
That is so funny. Now if you could only get a straight response from the California politicians. Like that will ever happen.
Politicians should be on notice that they need to start listening to the people or they will have short careers.
#4 - Wed May 19, 2010 8:19 AM EDTCalif. have never enforce any law again illegals and never will, beside not caring that the illegal is a big reason why their State is out of money. There governor is out in left field and should of never got into office period.
They want to boycott Arizona, well a lot of their power come from Arizona maybe they should boycott Calif. by shutting there power off. If not than the price just went up.
#5 - Wed May 19, 2010 8:31 AM EDT25% of our power comes from AZ and they have already pretty much told us that they will cut us off when the contract comes up for renewal.
actually I agree with you on this. I think it would only be fitting for Arizona to shut power off to Crappafornia. California is a joke of a state, it's government is a joke, and by electing trash like boxer, feinstein and pelosi their people are a joke.
Hit 'em with a few brown outs and see how fast CA changes it's tune.
They want to boycott Arizona, well a lot of their power come from Arizona maybe they should boycott Calif. by shutting there power off. If not than the price just went up.
This would be a thing of beauty.
well one no one is illegal without proving it.
being here without papers is a civil crime.
and what is funny is all of yall falling over each other laughing like you found something when the rest of us are wondering why the hell yall dont get the difference between requiring someone be under arrest for a crime, versus just randomly stopping people who look spanish or have a car up on blocks in their yard.
i'll try to make this as simple for GOPrs as I can.
DO you think cops should be able to randomly pull you over and demand your license and insurance no matter how much if a hurry you are in, or should they only [pull you over when they witness you breaking the law, like speeding?
arizona says cops can pull you when they feel like it, california says only if you are committing a crime.. speeding.
even republicans can grasp the difference right? I mean i get yall dont get the difference between civil offense and illegal.. but surely this isnt so complex that republicans cant see the difference in requiring that people be placed under arrest first?
Wrong Joules...you keep misrepresenting the amended law or at the least do not know what the law says in multiple posts.
HB2162 says
For any lawful STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency
and
Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released.
Wrong Joules...you keep misrepresenting the amended law or at the least do not know what the law says in multiple posts.
No, Joules is one of those Progressives that purposely mis-represents the law and adds his conjecture based on the Liberal prophesy that a Police Officer just might abuse his power sometime in the future. There is no denying that there are Police Officers in every state that do abuse their power. Some are caught and fired, and some are yet to be caught. We, however, do not appeal laws based on some rogue cops that may abuse their power.
We are a Country of Laws and those Laws are to be enforced equally for everyone. We do not just look the other way while an Illegal Immigrant is breaking our laws. That is Social Justice and has no place in our Country.
The AZ Law is what it is. The Police cannot just stop anyone they like on the street because they look Mexican and demand proof of citizenship like Joules is spreading around the Vine. He knows this and as with our President, he is lying.
25% of our power comes from AZ and they have already pretty much told us that they will cut us off when the contract comes up for renewal.
Apparently they have not heard that Intersate Commerce is federally regulated.
No, Joules is one of those Progressives that purposely mis-represents the law and adds his conjecture based on the Liberal prophesy that a Police Officer just might abuse his power sometime in the future.
I've never seen Joules respond any other way. He believes his way is the only available option, and to hell with anyone who disagrees with him! Yes, he is like a locomotive coming down the track at full speed! lol
soos, I have found the vast majority of liberals to be that way.
I've never seen Joules respond any other way. He believes his way is the only available option, and to hell with anyone who disagrees with him! Yes, he is like a locomotive coming down the track at full speed! lol
Don't forget, if you disagree with him, you are automatically a Bush-loving GOP neocon.
youngatheatrgrandma..5.12...Monkey Muffins! You don't know what the Bloody HELL your talking about! You have no idea what the left let alone the Liberals are all about. That is the big problem with you on the right you open your mouths and don't have one idea what your talking about.
Hey .....has anyone actually READ the law ? It's not like.....hey pedro, lemme seen your papers !
Remember the ' Born in east LA skit fromm cheech and chong ? California has been doing it for years.
#6 - Wed May 19, 2010 9:07 AM EDTIsn't this why we have amendments?
#7 - Wed May 19, 2010 9:10 AM EDT8 deleted, a clunky, personal critique from 4AWord:
SC Texan - you write as though you live in a trailer park, beneath one in fact.
If you're going to begin a new thread with a critique of another Viner's writing style, it should be a lot more thorough and on-topic than that.
Narrow minded sloth, with no regard for people hoping for a better life. This all came about due to our loose borders and the media demonstrating that only drug traffickers would be here illegally. That is not true. You people forget the innocents that find America as a true haven, who will and do work for less than minimum wage just to be here. They lead hard lives. You A**es scorn them and ostracize those who have done no wrong. They only wish for the chance our grandparents and great parents wished for when they came here with or without papers.
America is bankrupt because of these governmetal agencies chasing after people like this. I am a prime example. I am rich, from Beverly Hills, was beaten and raped by some kind of cop or gov. person in my home. I was told to shut up about it over and over. I would not. It turned into a 13 year nightmare of being bullied from city to city, 3 arrests all bull@!$%#, home invasion vandalism, thefts, further sexual assaults and beatings, casts on body, cracked skull from being hit over the head in my bed as I slept, my cat was killed - an innocent housecat, my front door knob repeatedly "popped open" terrifying me following the rape, bullied out of my job, cash stolen, credit ruined, car banged into whenever I parked it, if even for ten minutes, citations given to me for an expired parking meter that was NOT expired.
I am a Beverly Hills native. Our busniess was a Regional Bank which my father founded. We employed hundreds. Very well respected. Oops! But a dishonest A** raped me and launched a hell upon me the likes which none of you can imagine in your wildest dreams. He will pay. That is my goal and job life. Karma. What comes around goes around.
#9 - Wed May 19, 2010 9:28 AM EDTNarrow minded sloth, with no regard for people hoping for a better life.
Sorry, but my #1 concern is my family. I don't care that someone who is from another country wants a shot... There are channels to get your shot, just like there are channels that I have to take (being BORN an American) in order to get my shot at whatever I want. Do the RIGHT thing, and you won't be having this problem.
You people forget the innocents that find America as a true haven, who will and do work for less than minimum wage just to be here. They lead hard lives. You A**es scorn them and ostracize those who have done no wrong.
Illegal = against the law. Illegal immigrants (whether drug traffickers, or common people just wanting to live their lives in peace) are doing wrong by being here illegally. When it comes to illegal immigrants, 100% of them are criminals.
I am a prime example. I am rich, from Beverly Hills, was beaten and raped by some kind of cop or gov. person in my home. I was told to shut up about it over and over. I would not. It turned into a 13 year nightmare of being bullied from city to city, 3 arrests all bull@!$%#, home invasion vandalism, thefts, further sexual assaults and beatings, casts on body, cracked skull from being hit over the head in my bed as I slept, my cat was killed - an innocent housecat, my front door knob repeatedly "popped open" terrifying me following the rape, bullied out of my job, cash stolen, credit ruined, car banged into whenever I parked it, if even for ten minutes, citations given to me for an expired parking meter that was NOT expired.
So you are trying to claim that you were the target of all of this because..... the government is chasing after you? That is very believable...
He will pay. That is my goal and job life. Karma. What comes around goes around.
That isn't a very nice mindset for someone who preaches neutrality to criminal action...
Illegal = against the law. Illegal immigrants (whether drug traffickers, or common people just wanting to live their lives in peace) are doing wrong by being here illegally. When it comes to illegal immigrants, 100% of them are criminals.
Actually no, they're not. Illegal =/= criminal. The majority of illegal immigrants violate a civil statute, not a criminal statute. There is a distinction. This article, which interviewed Assistant Homeland Security Secretary John Morton, helps explain the difference and what specific acts may make an illegal immigrant a criminal.
Violation of the immigration law is a criminal offense - Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who: Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact; has committed a federal crime.
Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense.
fstwarrior:
Criminal offenses fall under Title 18, not Title 8. Title 8 is a civil code, with civil penalties. Please read Title 8, Section 1325 again, it states quite clearly: "Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed."
You'll note that the penalties are carried out under Title 18. "1907 Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) Offenses - Penalties -- The basic statutory maximum penalty for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(i) and (v)(I) (alien smuggling and conspiracy) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both. With regard to violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(ii)-(iv) and (v)(ii), domestic transportation, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or aiding/abetting, the basic statutory maximum term of imprisonment is 5 years, unless the offense was committed for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in which case the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years. In addition, significant enhanced penalties are provided for in violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1) involving serious bodily injury or placing life in jeopardy. Moreover, if the violation results in the death of any person, the defendant may be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years. The basic penalty for a violation of subsection 1324(a)(2) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(A). Enhanced penalties are provided for violations involving bringing in criminal aliens, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(i), offenses done for commercial advantage or private financial gain, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii), and violations where the alien is not presented to an immigration officer immediately upon arrival, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(iii). A mandatory minimum three year term of imprisonment applies to first or second violations of § 1324(a)(2)(B)(i) or (B)(ii). Further enhanced punishment is provided for third or subsequent offenses." Further discussion of offenses defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a) is set forth in Chapter 3 of Immigration Law, published as part of the Office of Legal Education's Litigation Series.
No, I'll note that some specific penalties are carried out under Title 18. You'll note, none of the ones you have cited mentions any criminal penalty for simply entering the US illegally. All of this is explained in the article which quotes Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Morton which I linked to earlier.
fstwarrior and Jarandhel,
I'm going to give my personal thanks to you both in this discussion. You are both taking the time to look up the law in your arguments.
You are going farther than most who are parroting what they have heard or saw posted on a blog somewhere.
Choose your position, make your argument, and be able to back up your argument.
I'll readily concede I don't know all the law - but I do know google :-).
Thanks Jarandhel and USA. Good discussion.
Jaramdhel - I have seen/read "something" that says criminal penalties apply for illegal entry - I'll keep looking.
Would you two accept a friend request?
Sure. I'll accept
I found some interesting instances where ICE and the Border Patrol can pull over people under the suspicion of being an illegal. I was careless and didn't save or mark it. What some people consider "profiling" has been already upheld by the Supreme Court as being reasonable suspicion. I hope to locate the rulings again and post them up.
Fstwarrior:
Sure, I'll accept a friend request from almost anyone. :). And thank you and USA for a good civil discussion on this too.
There are instances where being in the US has criminal penalties for illegal aliens, but mostly those are for criminal acts of fraud used to gain entry and not just being here without a visa.
USA:
I think this is the decision you're referring to: United States v. Brignoni-Ponce
From my reading of it, it specifically states that profiling relying solely on someone looking Hispanic is not a reasonable ground for stopping them and asking for identification to verify their immigration status. This new law seems to be an attempt to do an end-run around many of the restrictions imposed by the court in this ruling.
That is one case I was referring to.
Brignoni-Ponce explained, however, that:
"[a]ny number of factors may be taken into account in deciding whether there is reasonable suspicion to stop a car in the border area. Officers may consider the characteristics of the area in which they encounter a vehicle. Its proximity to the border, the usual patterns of traffic on the particular road, and previous experience with alien traffic are all relevant. They also may consider information about recent illegal border crossings in the area. The driver's behavior may be relevant, as erratic driving or obvious attempts to evade officers can support a reasonable suspicion. Aspects of the vehicle itself may justify suspicion. For instance, officers say that certain station wagons, with large compartments for fold-down seats or spare tires are frequently used for transporting concealed aliens. The vehicle may appear to be heavily loaded, it may have an extraordinary number of passengers, or the officers may observe persons trying to hide,"
Id. at 884-85.
Arvizu found reasonable suspicion in a border patrol case involving such circumstances :
It was reasonable for [Agent] Stoddard to infer from his observations, his registration check [of the minivan registered to an address in an area of the border town of Douglas,notorious for smuggling], and his experience as a border patrol agent that respondent had set out from Douglas along a little-traveled route used by smugglers to avoid the [route] 191 checkpoint. Stoddard's knowledge further supported a commonsense inference that respondent intended to pass through the area at a time when officers would be leaving their backroads patrols to change shifts. The likelihood that respondent and his family were on a picnic outing was diminished by the fact that the minivan had turned away from the known recreational areas
. . . . Corroborating this inference is the fact that recreational areas farther to the north would have been easier to reach by taking 191, as opposed to the 40-to-50 mile trip on unpaved and primitive roads [the minivan had taken]. The children's elevated knees [as they rode in the backseat of the van] suggested the existence of concealed cargo in the passenger compartment. Finally, for the reason we have given, Stoddard's assessment of respondent's reactions upon seeing him [slowing down dramatically, stiffening behind the wheel, and pretending to ignore the officer],
and the children's mechanical-like waving [as if under instructions to allay suspicions], which continued for a full four to five minutes, were entitled to some weight.
United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 277 (2002).
I have boycotted California since I heard it was going to break off the continent and float away.
#10 - Wed May 19, 2010 9:51 AM EDTThe koolaid drinkers in Seattle also bycotted Arizona-except for the Arizona company that helps Seattle makes money through the red light cameras. I guess the income was too much for the libbies to give up for a little "principle". What a @!$%#ing joke these people are.....
#12 - Wed May 19, 2010 10:38 AM EDTWhat principles would you be referring too Brent...LoL...
Wondering...
The bill clearly states that racial profiling is illegal. Law enforcement will have to take a special course that will teach them how not to profile. Reality: they're going to profile anyway. However, being racially profiled is a sue-able offense. Lawyers from the ACLU and other organizations would line up to defend Americans who have been racially profiled. More lawsuits = more money the state would have to pay out. Result (I would think): few cops would racially profile because 1) they'd get fired, and 2) it would cost the state money.
So...what's the issue?
#13 - Wed May 19, 2010 10:48 AM EDTBesides, when the police pulls anyone over, they run their license (not just the licenses from a certain race). This is just another straw-man for the left to whine about.
Actually you will find most officers run your plate before they pull you over.
Mav
Actually you will find most officers run your plate before they pull you over.
What!!!! They cannot do that. That is Unconstitutional because I have not even been pulled over and stopped yet. Where the hell is the ACLU, I want to file a lawsuit over this slap in the face!!!!
What!!!! They cannot do that. That is Unconstitutional because I have not even been pulled over and stopped yet. Where the hell is the ACLU, I want to file a lawsuit over this slap in the face!!!!
They run your plate while they are catching up to you before they pull you over. In most cases, they'll be pulling you over anyway, whether they run the plate before they cut the lights on or not.
Unless your vehicle fits a BOLO description, then they'll run the plate to ensure it isn't the specific vehicle, and if it isn't they won't pull you over.
I don't really feel one way or the other about the AZ law as long as it has the probable cause clause. Let the courts settle the probable cause issue.
My real question for JR and those on the right that support the law is: Why aren't you calling for increased enforcement on the businesses that hire the illegals? And why aren't you calling for a repeal of the "anchor baby clause"? These people ain't coming across the border to stay at the local Holiday Inn. They're largely coming across for jobs and a better life for their kids. If you want to stop illegal immigration we really need to address the root causes - we allow businesses to hire them with little or no penalty and we grant citizenship automatically to anyone born here. There's the problem. Eliminate the advantages of crossing the border illegally and you'll eliminate cross the border illegally. Shoot, you could run charter buses across the freaking border and if they couldn't find jobs and their kids wouldn't be citizens they wouldn't get onboard.
Why does no one on the right, or the left, want to address the real issues?
#14 - Wed May 19, 2010 11:40 AM EDTAnd why aren't you calling for a repeal of the "anchor baby clause"?
The "anchor baby clause" is the US constitution itself, specifically the definition of citizen found in the 14th Amendment. It would take another amendment to repeal it.
I realize that. There was a historical reason for it which passed a long time ago. The question stands.
Most of us don't think that the reason for the right to citizenship based on birth "passed a long time ago". How could it, when we even require our President to be a natural-born citizen?
Jarandhel - there are many legal scholars who have stated that the "anchor baby" statement is purely a myth, and it is not legally binding.
"The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be over 300,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965.
The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
"Alien Birthright Citizenship: A Fable That Lives Through Ignorance - By far the most relevant Supreme Court ruling on the subject to date, and indeed, fully supported by the Fourteenth Amendment itself came in Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884), where the court held that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence.
If pro immigration groups or individuals want to continue in believing the Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born in the country regardless of their allegiance, fine -- but to continue to insist the Fourteenth Amendment supports their fable is both feeble and a disrespect to American history."
Fstwarrior:
Generally it it's a good idea to cite your sources. I'm not sure The American Resistance counts as "many legal scholars". As for the question of the legal reality of anchor babies, you should review United States v Wong Kim Ark
jarandhel,
My point is that all person born in the US are not necessarily de facto US citizens. THis is the problem with the 14 Amendment, which had a point at the time of adoption but failed to consider the future. The US is the only country which grants de facto citizenship based on place of birth. I, and many others, feel that this should not be the case. Only children where at least one parent was a natural-born or naturalized citizen should be considered citizens. Children of illegal immigrants, immigrants on work visas or other legal forms of temporary visit should not be automatically granted citizenship. The amendment needs clarified yet I do not see calls for doing so. Additionally, I do not see calls for increased prosecution of businesses who hire illegal aliens. That is my point.
What the idiots at moonbattery fail to point out is that the code does not provided that law enforcement stop someone because they appear to look like their from Mexico or appear to look like their in the country illegally.
Typical conservative fact twist. I'll contiune to boycott arizona.
#15 - Wed May 19, 2010 12:31 PM EDTWhat the idiots at moonbattery fail to point out is that the code does not provided that law enforcement stop someone because they appear to look like their from Mexico or appear to look like their in the country illegally.
what the left idiots fail to point out is that the AZ code doesn't either. TRY READING THE LAW BEFORE REFERRING TO IT!
I have. You should read the AZ law before you respond.
Arizona's law orders immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there's reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally.
What part of this don't you understand?
I like burritos.
#16 - Wed May 19, 2010 1:26 PM EDTSeems like everyone is down with burritos, tacos, and nachos. Am I the only one that likes tostadas?
no, I like tostadas too, but they are kind of messy. To be perfectly honest - I LOVE the American bastardized version of mexican food, but authentic mexican food - not so much.
Just heard that Az is going to turn off the electicity going to LA due to their boycott. yeh!!!
#17 - Wed May 19, 2010 1:26 PM EDThttp://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/051810_arizonapdf.pdf
The letter to the LA mayor in its entirety.
Update: LADWP's General Manager's statement in response to the AZ letter:
http://www.ladwpnews.com/go/doc/1475/555479/
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if LADWP owns part of the plants in AZ, shouldn't they -still- boycott themselves?
ma, that's what we deal with everyday.. how about you? I do find it interesting that you misspelled the words..go figure...
I still don't get it why people are so upset if they are stopped and asked for identification. Police will not stop any one just because they are hispanics. I am quite certain that they will be stopped and checked if they are unruly, reported by someone or there are reasonable cause for suspicious acts. It is inconceivable that a policeman/woman on duty will stop everybody in the street just because they are empowered to do so. Even at the height of the communist power in East Germany when the Statsi, a police agency, have the power to detain any one at their whim, does not stop just anybody. It would be laughable indeed to see a policeman standing in one area stopping everybody and checking papers. In my opinion, people who thinks like this are idiots who minds are clouded with conspiracies and too much freedom licking ideas floating into their mind set. Besides, what is a few minutes of showing an authority that you are a legitimate american worth. Not a damn thing unless of course if you have something to hide. It is people like you who are stopping the government from doing their job properly. As for California---they are now bankrupt and starting to reduce social services which will affect legitimate americans who needed it. I hope Arizona cut off their power source completely.
#18 - Wed May 19, 2010 1:29 PM EDTIt is inconceivable that a policeman/woman on duty will stop everybody in the street just because they are empowered to do so.
But that's just it, they are NOT empowered to do so!
And I agree with you - if you don't have anything to hide, what's the big deal?
JR,
If I may, I seeded an article regarding Arizona cutting off the electrical power to cities in California, if they boycott Arizona. It's becoming a war.
http://www.newsvine.com/_tools/edit/link?contentId=4307393
I have to admit, Arizona is a little more than pissed off, and I agree with them on this issue. No city in California should tell a state how to run their local and state government. It has a taste of extortion to it, I think.
#19 - Wed May 19, 2010 2:27 PM EDTLA is full of illegals and the goofy mayor spends his time worrying about the Arizona law.
#20 - Wed May 19, 2010 5:31 PM EDTWait until Arizona shuts off the power (electricity) to California.
#21 - Wed May 19, 2010 7:12 PM EDTAll I want to know is if the mayor of Los Angeles took an oath to uphold the laws of Los Angeles. If he did, is he now breaking the law by not enforcing those laws?
I've asked this question on a seed of mine, and I really am interested in knowing the answer.
#22 - Thu May 20, 2010 4:55 PM EDTIf he indeed took an oath he is violation of his oath because California law would pertain to the city. Resignations, impeachments etc are in order. The Governator should send CSP troopers to the city halls in Berkley, LA, SF and any other "free" cities and have these sons of bitches arrested.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Log In | Register
